The War in the Ukraine

pmc

Major
Registered Member
No USSR didn't, nor did I say USSR did, so why do you ask? What are you smoking or drinking?
you wrote this one. i want to see example where this superior numbers tactics are actually used. not just random number proclamation.

Both USSR's and US's tactics rely on superior numbers to overwhelm the opponents
 

Abominable

Major
Registered Member
I wasn't discussing the content or the view expressed in that article, genuine or forgery. I was challenging the claim that the article/speech was a forgery. I felt that some people try to discredit the view by suggesting it's a forgery.

As for the views expressed in both articles/speeches, I think they're more influenced by the prevailing western medium or narrative, throwing in their own biases, for whatever reasons. There are some truth in them, but ultimately they're neither complete nor balanced. I think there is also some level of uncomfort amongst some Chinese with regards to the view expressed by a former ambassador to Ukraine because it deviates from China's official stand as well as the implications for the perceived national interest of China. It's understandable, but still accusing it to be forgery is bit too far.
I wasn't responding to your post specifically, mainly the article itself. I only read it because of your post.

Ambassadors play a special role compared to other government officials, specifically the foreign minister. Broadly speaking they need to improve relations with the country they reside in. Even when relations are bad between two countries, the ambassador should try to improve things. It's perfectly reasonable to grant the ambassador more leeway than you would the foreign office. In the past America and the UK used this very effectively against China.

But as you say, the comments are inappropriate.
 

taxiya

Brigadier
Registered Member
you wrote this one. i want to see example where this superior numbers tactics are actually used. not just random number proclamation.
I said
Both USSR's and US's tactics rely on superior numbers to overwhelm the opponents

You asked for example of are actually used.

Do you understand the meanings of plain English words? Are "Rely on" and "actually used" of the same meaning? Certainly not, so what is your what is your problem? Trying to be a jerk?
 

Atomicfrog

Major
Registered Member
M777A2 captured by Russians apparently. If true then guess they've reached the front lines.

What I would really like to see is captured PzH 2000 displayed next to Hummel and Grille, you know in chronological order.
It was certainly not lone... maybe a part broke or the truck didn't start. If not theres a couple destroyed beside it. It's impressive that there's one already captured, they lost all std stock and rely already on the new ones ?
 
Last edited:

james smith esq

Senior Member
Registered Member
The bold texts are themselves another assumption (of a war with clear and measurable goal). But is't right? Military action is just extension of politics and another one of many political means to achieve political goals. To me the only goal in Russia's mind which is certain is to keep Ukraine as a buffer like China keeping Korea from falling to full US control or Vietnam fully falling to USSR. That kind of goal does not necessarily demand a clean victory. Korean war ended in a cease fire and technically can resume any time. Vietnam and China kept fighting at the border more than ten years after 1978's war. Why then do people expect that Russia would expect or could finish the matter with a clean cut victory in any sort? If that is clear to the Russian leadership and is their expectation and intension, why should people here expect anything else? This is why I said "people should not project their own unrealistic exceptions on others".

Another way to express my view. Achieving a quick and clean victory in early stage as many people here expected, is great for Russia. And Russian leaders will certainly not reject it. But is the Russian leaders really expect this as the only outcome without doubt and without preparing for a less rosy but more realistic outcome? If it is the last, I don't see any major error in decision making. Put it simply, I prepare for long but would be happy for the short and glory, no matter what. From a strategic point, pure military performance is just academics and irrelevant to the end goal which is determined by industrial capability and will.
I don’t believe that I suggested that Russia either should, or could, achieve any overall comprehensive victory; I don’t expect them to. In fact, I’m on record -multiple times- as having bet on Ukraine. What my, and I believe others’, expectations were, was that Russia would be able to persistently and competently execute formation-level combined-armed operations.

Have they?
 

Bill Blazo

Junior Member
Registered Member
Today's updates. Seems Russia is going for a much more limited encirclement than previously.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

There's also several Drive articles that are relevant. Snake Island/Brimstone/failed river crossing.
Yes, the Russian priority right now is the SLR metroplex, with Severodonetsk being the next target and then Lysychansk (Rubizhne has already fallen). Given the limited resources and lack of escalation by the Russians, this is a very sensible goal. They're not trying to push for crazy objectives anymore like in the first month of the war. Once the metroplex falls and the Russians have secured the north bank of the Donets River, they'll probably move on to Bakhmut, and after that to Slavyansk and Kramatorsk.
 

Bill Blazo

Junior Member
Registered Member
I don’t believe that I suggested that Russia either should, or could, achieve any overall comprehensive victory; I don’t expect them to. In fact, I’m on record -multiple times- as having bet on Ukraine. What my, and I believe others’, expectations were, was that Russia would be able to persistently and competently execute formation-level combined-armed operations.

Have they?
Yes, they obviously have, on multiple fronts and sectors. They've done it in the Siege of Mariupol, bringing together amphibious operations, artillery barrages, and air strikes all at once. They're doing it every day in the Donbas. The Russians are doing what they do best: taking huge losses and conquering more land at the same time. It's the basic story of Russian military history.
 
Top